Cruz Thread

[CaptFun]

Cruz is getting a lot of grief for his earlier “New York values” statement – but I knew instantly what he meant (presuming of course that I got it RIGHT ).

New York looks like a pretty BLUE state on most days if you look at who “it” elects. Even the most prominent Republicans have been “Pro-choice”.

He could have said “California values” and I’d have felt the same way - not offended, but
acknowledging a regional bias against the general principles of the usual GOP platform. And how much more distant from the things a Cruz campaigns for more vehemently.

It should be a home game for Trump … but if somehow Cruz or Cruz/Kasich should hold him under 50% and make him share delegates … it puts a lot of damage to his getting to 1237.

And should either Cruz or Kasich actually WIN New York (by WHATEVER % breakdown) the Trump campaign might look like the Hindenburg coming in on that final leg.

 

[Alex_H]

Will a Pres. Cruz be able to abolish the IRS and institute a flat tax by presidential mandate or does this plan have to be presented to and passed by Congress? If the latter, will Congress go along and, if they do, how long would the details of such a plan take to be hammered out? Excuse me if I’m doubtful about the feasibility of all this.

I understand your skepticism. I know that congress will be hostile to many of the ideas that Ted brings forth. I hope that with Ted as the President, however, we will be able to get some things done. Will we get everything we want? Of course not. That’s sort of how our democracy works.

Cruz also wants to abolish several other governmental agencies such as the Department of Education,

Before the Ed Dept. was created in 1979, the United States was one of the leaders of the world when it came to educating our students. Now we are lagging at the back of the pack. Of course we still beat third world countries but whenever it comes to the majority of countries in the industrialized world and even some developing nations, we are lagging behind the pack.

and he wants to get rid of Obamacare, including the Affordable Care Act. How will the latter help the poor? And don’t you think his proposals are just as ambitious as those of Bernie Sanders, and equally as implausible? If not, why not?

I just remember, when my mom was alive, she had Obamacare. None of the doctors in our area would take it. They said it didn’t pay them at all so they simply refused her service. She was paying hundreds of dollars for insurance she couldn’t even use.

Maybe that is the exception to the rule, and Obamacare may be outstanding for everyone else, but I doubt it.

Not to mention the fact that the exchanges that Obamacare set up are failing. Companies are leaving these exchanges.

 

[queenofheartscv]

queenofheartscv

Fair enough.

queenofheartscv. Thank you for doing that.

I’ve seen your posts here and I think overall they are great. Your students must get much benefit from your help to them.

Keep up the good work.

My Dad too, used to put in the basket at Church in cash. Never claimed it on his taxes. He didn’t even count THAT as “charity”.

Sometimes if people don’t think they are getting a “full Gospel” at their Catholic parish, they send their tithing money to other Catholic sources instead.

There is more to tithing than “tax forms”.

Cruz helped win that man $14 million in restitution. Thompson was a poor jailed minority man who had no means to pay Cruz (other than Cruz’s court settlement he had won for him).

Attorneys frequently get a third of their settlements.

Since Cruz was with other attorneys he probably wouldn’t have had almost the whole five million dollars coming to him but it would have been substantial. Cruz took nothing.

**Cruz probably had well over a million dollars coming to him. Cruz took nothing. **

MATTHEW 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

If you don’t want to chalk that up as “charity” that’s your call. I’m OK with that.

And maybe we as voters should have been asking MORE strictly about “Church donations” and “tax-exemption evidence” of candidates. All the candidates.

Candidates like Barack Obama and how much he gave over the years to Jeremiah Wright.

I don’t know. Maybe we should be asking that question . . . maybe not.

But if we should, it would be worth applying that standard across the board.

Trump has done good things too (I’m not trying to say EVERYTHING he does is bad. No way). I heard an interview with a motorist he aided once where if I recall correctly, he paid for their car repairs and a month’s rent from their place (or some such thing). I am sure he didn’t “claim” that as a “tax-exemption” either. But it was still charity.

Look. I want the same thing for our country as you do. I want the proverbial neighborhood where I grew up in back.

I agree with you on this point. I get it. (“Make America Great Again” is a great campaign slogan)

Now the issue is, HOW do we get the country back up and running the way it is supposed to be?

I may not know what the answer is, but I know what the answer isn’t—division.

And if the Establishment Republicans try to commandeer a “fresh face” (as Karl Rove suggested) at the 2016 Republican Convention, I don’t want to be in a “sea of acrimony” with Trump people.

We will have to win over many Establishment Republicans too!

Division will only dampen the chances of some sort of an insurgent coalition (by "insurgents I mean Cruz and Trump).

An uneasy coalition perhaps, but SOMETHING that will need to be maneuvered by the insurgents in the Republican camp to defeat the foisting of a “fresh face” upon the voters (which will probably in all reality be an “old face”).

It is important not to burn our bridges. It is wise to weigh our words carefully.

The answer for us to help our Country is not through dividing us.

Yes we must weigh differences and nuances among the candidates. And sometimes we all cross the line.

But if we “self-immolate” as a Party, the Country loses.

Again. Many thanks for your catechizing (“teaching hours at church”).

Thanks for your kind post. I agree that it’s important not to burn bridges. Perhaps unity can still be preserved on the republican side. That’ll be a good thing.

 

[Peter_J]

I understand your skepticism. I know that congress will be hostile to many of the ideas that Ted brings forth. I hope that with Ted as the President, however, we will be able to get some things done. Will we get everything we want? Of course not. That’s sort of how our democracy works.

Before the Ed Dept. was created in 1979, the United States was one of the leaders of the world when it came to educating our students. Now we are lagging at the back of the pack. Of course we still beat third world countries but whenever it comes to the majority of countries in the industrialized world and even some developing nations, we are lagging behind the pack.

I just remember, when my mom was alive, she had Obamacare. None of the doctors in our area would take it. They said it didn’t pay them at all so they simply refused her service. She was paying hundreds of dollars for insurance she couldn’t even use.

Maybe that is the exception to the rule, and Obamacare may be outstanding for everyone else, but I doubt it.

Not to mention the fact that the exchanges that Obamacare set up are failing. Companies are leaving these exchanges.

 

[lynnvinc]

Just posted to the Sanders thread in response to a post (see below) & since my post also relates to Cruz (see bolded below), thought I’d post it here –

WSJ: "Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders will take time off the campaign trail ahead of the critical New York primary for a trip to the Vatican next week, his campaign said Friday.

The Vermont senator will participate in a conference on social, economic and environmental issues April 15, alongside Bolivian President Evo Morales, Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa and others, his campaign and the Vatican said.

“I was very moved by the invitation,” Mr. Sanders said Friday on MSNBC.

Mr. Sanders, who would be the first Jewish president if elected, expressed admiration for Pope Francis for his efforts “to inject a sense of morality into how we do economics.”

READ FULL STORY: wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-to-break-off-campaign-trail-for-vatican-visit-1460128232?mod=e2fb

My response:

This is great. A chance to meet Correa and perhaps learn about rights of nature, which seems to be working in some US communities re keeping fracking and industrial hog farming out of neighborhoods. As you all know fracking is poisoning the air and water and harming and killing people, not to mention the ubiquitous property damage and making their property value go down to zilch, plus risk explosion.

As it stands right now in the US, we have lost what little “community rights” we may have had at our inception that might have helped keep death and poison out of our backyards and people are being force to die and be harmed now. They are also trying to frack under my home in an area that has 2 elementary schools.

Anyway “rights of nature” seem to be helping us regain our community rights. See celdf.org/

Of course Cruz is not only for stopping us from getting rights to life, but quite into removing what little protections, rules and laws we have against our water, air, food, and soil from being poisoned…if you understand what he really means by “getting regulations off the backs of big biz.” Maybe his strategy to end abortion is just kill everyone in every evil and sneaky way he can. A very effective and ingenious strategy, I guess. And Trump just doesn’t know what’s going on. And Clinton was also for fracking before Sanders came on the scene.

 

[meltzerboy]

Just posted to the Sanders thread in response to a post (see below) & since my post also relates to Cruz (see bolded below), thought I’d post it here –

My response:

This is great. A chance to meet Correa and perhaps learn about rights of nature, which seems to be working in some US communities re keeping fracking and industrial hog farming out of neighborhoods. As you all know fracking is poisoning the air and water and harming and killing people, not to mention the ubiquitous property damage and making their property value go down to zilch, plus risk explosion.

As it stands right now in the US, we have lost what little “community rights” we may have had at our inception that might have helped keep death and poison out of our backyards and people are being force to die and be harmed now. They are also trying to frack under my home in an area that has 2 elementary schools.

Anyway “rights of nature” seem to be helping us regain our community rights. See celdf.org/

Of course Cruz is not only for stopping us from getting rights to life, but quite into removing what little protections, rules and laws we have against our water, air, food, and soil from being poisoned…if you understand what he really means by “getting regulations off the backs of big biz.” Maybe his strategy to end abortion is just kill everyone in every evil and sneaky way he can. A very effective and ingenious strategy, I guess. And Trump just doesn’t know what’s going on. And Clinton was also for fracking before Sanders came on the scene.

Clinton is still ambiguous on the issue. Sanders is the only candidate completely opposed to fracking without exception, and he refuses to change his view on this or any other issue for the purpose of political expediency.

 

[lynnvinc]

Will a Pres. Cruz be able to abolish the IRS and institute a flat tax by presidential mandate or does this plan have to be presented to and passed by Congress? If the latter, will Congress go along and, if they do, how long would the details of such a plan take to be hammered out? Excuse me if I’m doubtful about the feasibility of all this. Cruz also wants to abolish several other governmental agencies such as the Department of Education, and he wants to get rid of Obamacare, including the Affordable Care Act. How will the latter help the poor? And don’t you think his proposals are just as ambitious as those of Bernie Sanders, and equally as implausible? If not, why not?

The above written assignment is due on my desk by Monday morning.

He also wants to get rid of the EPA, which Texas has been trying to do for sometime, bec it wants the ability to poison and kill people at will, without interference. Just one horrendous example out of the very many – see

“Texas politicians knew agency hid the amount of radiation in drinking water”
legacy.khou.com/story/news/2014/07/16/11481178/

 

[lynnvinc]

Clinton is still ambiguous on the issue. Sanders is the only candidate completely opposed to fracking without exception, and he refuses to change his view on this or any other issue for the purpose of political expediency.

Then everyone should be voting for him, if they value life on planet earth…instead of get rich with Trump or Cruz at the expense of harming others, including one’s children and progeny.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Clinton is still ambiguous on the issue. Sanders is the only candidate completely opposed to fracking without exception, and he refuses to change his view on this or any other issue for the purpose of political expediency.

Hillary Clinton won’t shrink from accepting oil money any more than she did from sitting on the board of directors of Walmart and taking money (through Bill) for approving the sale of American uranium supplies to a Russian company. She won’t stay bought, of course, but I think the industry has enough money to keep Bill in highly profitable speeches.

If Democrats think Hillary Clinton won’t be in the pay of corporate interests, they had better think it out again. I don’t for a minute doubt some Democrats aren’t for selling the country out for political gains (the Sanders supporters) but I don’t think it extends much beyond them.

Same with war. Hillary is one of the most obvious warmongers who ever sought the office of president, and the support for her suggests to me that the “anti-war” Democrats’ only objection to war is when a Republican is directing it.

No offense to you, Meltzerboy, personally, as I believe you are a man of integrity. But seriously, Democrats really do need to think more clearly about the sort of person they’re about to nominate and perhaps put in the White House. Other than abortion on demand, she doesn’t stand for a single thing most Democrats at least purport to hold sacred.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hillary Clinton won’t shrink from accepting oil money any more than she did from sitting on the board of directors of Walmart and taking money (through Bill) for approving the sale of American uranium supplies to a Russian company. She won’t stay bought, of course, but I think the industry has enough money to keep Bill in highly profitable speeches.

If Democrats think Hillary Clinton won’t be in the pay of corporate interests, they had better think it out again. I don’t for a minute doubt some Democrats aren’t for selling the country out for political gains (the Sanders supporters) but I don’t think it extends much beyond them.

Same with war. Hillary is one of the most obvious warmongers who ever sought the office of president, and the support for her suggests to me that the “anti-war” Democrats’ only objection to war is when a Republican is directing it.

No offense to you, Meltzerboy, personally, as I believe you are a man of integrity. But seriously, Democrats really do need to think more clearly about the sort of person they’re about to nominate and perhaps put in the White House. Other than abortion on demand, she doesn’t stand for a single thing most Democrats at least purport to hold sacred.

Thank you for your kind words, Ridgerunner. This is why some Democrats, including me, are looking for a Republican candidate whom they can vote for in good conscience. Neither Cruz nor Trump fits the bill, but Kasich may if somehow he could become the nominee.

 

[Alex_H]

Thank you for your kind words, Ridgerunner. This is why some Democrats, including me, are looking for a Republican candidate whom they can vote for in good conscience. Neither Cruz nor Trump fits the bill, but Kasich may if somehow he could become the nominee.

What about Paul Ryan?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

What about Paul Ryan?

I don’t care for Ryan, but I wouldn’t vote for anyone who did not put in the time and effort of campaigning. No one but Trump or Cruz should be the nominee. Kasich hasn’t garnered enough votes. Since some of my family members live in Ohio, I know about Kasich and would have to be physically forced before I’d vote for him.

I don’t mean to sound contentious, I’ve voted for Republicans and Democrats. I just think the nominee should be chosen from among those who put in the time and effort to gain the voters’ trust.

 

[meltzerboy]

What about Paul Ryan?

Paul Ryan is an intellectual, economic conservative in the tradition of William F. Buckley. He may be a contender in my book, but not in the book of the GOP, which is the only book that really matters.

 

[lynnvinc]

I don’t care for Ryan, but I wouldn’t vote for anyone who did not put in the time and effort of campaigning. No one but Trump or Cruz should be the nominee. Kasich hasn’t garnered enough votes. Since some of my family members live in Ohio, I know about Kasich and would have to be physically forced before I’d vote for him.

I don’t mean to sound contentious, I’ve voted for Republicans and Democrats. I just think the nominee should be chosen from among those who put in the time and effort to gain the voters’ trust.

Both Kasich and Ryan are just as bad and “corporate men” who don’t really care a fig about life on earth, even though Kasich is the only Republican that doesn’t deny anthropogenic climate change.

I’d suggest watching Democracy Now! for better information on all the candidates. (They seem to be more for Sanders and for good reason.) If you can’t get it on your TV on the Free Speech channel, then it is available on the internet: democracynow.org/

About Kasich: “Kasich May Look Like a “Moderate,” But He’s Still Dangerously Conservative” democracynow.org/2016/4/8/juan_gonzalez_kasich_may_look_like

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Both Kasich and Ryan are just as bad and “corporate men” who don’t really care a fig about life on earth, even though Kasich is the only Republican that doesn’t deny anthropogenic climate change.

I’d suggest watching Democracy Now! for better information on all the candidates. (They seem to be more for Sanders and for good reason.) If you can’t get it on your TV on the Free Speech channel, then it is available on the internet: democracynow.org/

About Kasich: “Kasich May Look Like a “Moderate,” But He’s Still Dangerously Conservative” democracynow.org/2016/4/8/juan_gonzalez_kasich_may_look_like

Thank you. I agree that neither Ryan nor Kasich cares a thing about life on earth or the disappearing middle class, not to mention the poor.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thank you for your kind words, Ridgerunner. This is why some Democrats, including me, are looking for a Republican candidate whom they can vote for in good conscience. Neither Cruz nor Trump fits the bill, but Kasich may if somehow he could become the nominee.

I like Kasich, though a lot of folks don’t. I don’t think he has any chance of getting the nomination, though.

If I was still a Democrat (I’m not a Repub now, I’m just me) faced with the current choices, I think I would vote for Trump if Kasich fails and no “white knight” comes out of either party. Before you have a cardiac arrest, let me explain. Trump, I believe, has no ideology at all. He’s pure function like (to be frank) a lot of business people are…they spend all their “think time” thinking about projects, not abstractions. If he’s elected, he will either prove a competent functionary or he won’t. If he does, it might be a great relief to people to get a few years of non-ideologue, pure manager in the White House, so we can all just go about our lives. Maybe someone like him really can get some fiscal sanity established. Nobody else in the last two decades seemed to even want to do it. Ideology has ruled, and hang the cost.

If he doesn’t succeed, he won’t be re-elected. In the meantime MAYBE both parties can rethink just what kind of person really represents what their constituents want in a leader, and neither party will, by then, “owe it” to anyone, even John Kasich or Paul Ryan or Hillary Clinton. And nobody will have to hold his nose and pretend someone like Hillary Clinton isn’t corrupt to the core.

Trump, to me, is like a non-party person who stepped out of the corporate telephone book and saw insanity in both parties and volunteered to sit in the Oval Office chair for awhile until both could figure out what they really want to do without it being a reaction to the person sitting in the White House. Does he have an ego investment in it? Sure. But to a nation gagging on “fundamentally transforming America”, “making America great again” is pretty non-threatening, almost a neutral position ideologically. Just function, like “putting Hewlett-Packard back on top”, or “reorganizing Conoco Phillips back to profitability”.

Maybe that’s why I like Kasich. There’s a lot to be said against him as a choice for a lot of Republicans. But I suspect he would be utterly unexciting, boring to ideologues, but uncorrupt and competent to manage. What a respite for the country that could be! Trouble is, he has no chance of winning the nomination.

 

[queenofheartscv]

I like Kasich, though a lot of folks don’t. I don’t think he has any chance of getting the nomination, though.

If I was still a Democrat (I’m not a Repub now, I’m just me) faced with the current choices, I think I would vote for Trump if Kasich fails and no “white knight” comes out of either party. Before you have a cardiac arrest, let me explain. Trump, I believe, has no ideology at all. He’s pure function like (to be frank) a lot of business people are…they spend all their “think time” thinking about projects, not abstractions. If he’s elected, he will either prove a competent functionary or he won’t. If he does, it might be a great relief to people to get a few years of non-ideologue, pure manager in the White House, so we can all just go about our lives. Maybe someone like him really can get some fiscal sanity established. Nobody else in the last two decades seemed to even want to do it. Ideology has ruled, and hang the cost.

If he doesn’t succeed, he won’t be re-elected. In the meantime MAYBE both parties can rethink just what kind of person really represents what their constituents want in a leader, and neither party will, by then, “owe it” to anyone, even John Kasich or Paul Ryan or Hillary Clinton. And nobody will have to hold his nose and pretend someone like Hillary Clinton isn’t corrupt to the core.

Trump, to me, is like a non-party person who stepped out of the corporate telephone book and saw insanity in both parties and volunteered to sit in the Oval Office chair for awhile until both could figure out what they really want to do without it being a reaction to the person sitting in the White House. Does he have an ego investment in it? Sure. But to a nation gagging on “fundamentally transforming America”, “making America great again” is pretty non-threatening, almost a neutral position ideologically. Just function, like “putting Hewlett-Packard back on top”, or “reorganizing Conoco Phillips back to profitability”.

Maybe that’s why I like Kasich. There’s a lot to be said against him as a choice for a lot of Republicans. But I suspect he would be utterly unexciting, boring to ideologues, but uncorrupt and competent to manage. What a respite for the country that could be! Trouble is, he has no chance of winning the nomination.

I’d say this is a very accurate analysis.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Thank you. I agree that neither Ryan nor Kasich cares a thing about life on earth or the disappearing middle class, not to mention the poor.

The hard evidence for this rather remarkable assertion is what, specifically?

 

[FollowChrist34]

A victory for Ted Cruz would lead to a religious revival in America. Christian values will be a real factor in American life again. It will be hard for Ted Cruz to win though. 23% of the population is irreligious. They will likely not vote for Ted Cruz or any Republican.

I don’t think anyone knows what will happen in November. The odds on favorite to win the White House is probably Hillary. But she is vulnerable if the GOP unites and votes as a block. The number of GOP primary voters this year has been amazingly high. Trump should get a lot of credit here.

Another good thing about Trump (and I rarely have good things to say about Trump), is that he has hit on this anger in a lot of Americans. No one can decide for sure whether it is economic or cultural anger, or both. I say both, but more cultural than economic. Angry white male, rural, Christian influence if not necessarily practicing - that is not just a stereotype.

What is odd is that the Sanders base does the same thing, again I think that is more hard left urban culturally driven than economics. Racism, homophobia, these are great rallying cries of the (white) left who for the most part are pretty comfortable economically, the chattering class. (The welfare state has been hugely expanded under Obama; Obamacare, gay marriage, etc.; I can’t quite figure out what is left on the left to be angry about; it is really what Catholics call “social poverty”) Or as Bill Clinton would say, “the truth hurts.” Many of the black poverty issues are cultural (self-inflicted) as well. I don’t think more intense, hate-filled left wing demagoguery is what this country needs right now. The Trump and Sanders base mentalities are the opposing sides of this cultural disintegration. Again, I blame the left more than the right. The Trumpers are the white working class marginalized reacting to the last eight years of social shifts.

None of this tension will magically disappear when Hillary takes office either.

I don’t think Cruz has a chance in hell of starting a religious revival. If the GOP does get it together enough to vote for him as the most competent conservative left in the race, and he wins (all huge “ifs”), Cruz is just going to pull the country to the right, not be a religious demagogue. Obama has us far left; Cruz gets us to center right, especially against a Democratic Senate, possibly even House.

I say he is smart enough to work the center where he will frankly be caged by circumstances pretty effectvely: he takes the pressure off of Christians, but also doesn’t impose Evangelicalism on anyone. This is not a man who wants government to tell anyone what to do. And he believes that to his “core”. He gives more power to the states (if he can). Cuts programs but doesn’t gut them. Doesn’t abolish the IRA or impose a flat tax, blah blah blah. Doesn’t patrol Muslims; doesn’t build a wall; does control illegal immigration/ISIS effectively.

He is a good choice in November because above would energize the country, alleviate tension and restore a moderate healthy cultural tolerance - in both directions. Dislodge some of this left wing craziness; revitalize the country in a more mainstream way. As a fiscal conservative, he would deal with issues like Social Security, etc. There is where the Dems come in - compromise. We do need a workable federal budget; another reason to go conservative. Foreign policy would be much more in America’s interests; America would be back on the map after much weakness and embarrassment. We would connect again with our allies and defend against our enemies. But I don’t think Cruz would land us in senseless wars. What I like about him is that the fact that he is smart. (as opposed to angry or corrupt or socialist)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Both Kasich and Ryan are just as bad and “corporate men” who don’t really care a fig about life on earth, even though Kasich is the only Republican that doesn’t deny anthropogenic climate change.

And Hillary Clinton, who sat on the board of directors for Walmart, isn’t a “corporate person”? My goodness, how much more “corporate person” can a person ever be?

Let’s see now. Walmart buys almost all foreign-made goods for its stores (except some, but not all, of the food). Most of it is made in third-world countries where workers are paid hardly enough to stay alive, where there’s no workers’ compensation if a worker gets injured by open machinery, where pollution is so bad that people die on the streets from it, and where some of it is made in Gulags with convict labor. At home, it has driven huge numbers of small businesses out of business.

And she’s the champion of “climate change”, the middle class and the poor?